Mar. 9, 2013

Written by

Matthew Tully and Erika Smith

Robert McGrady sits Downtown on Washington Street with a container for money. Concern for the health of the city's Downtown economy is certainly one of the reasons behind an effort to address the issue of panhandling, Erika Smith and Matthew Tully agree.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Mayor Greg Ballard announced a proposed crackdown on panhandling in Downtown Indianapolis during his State of the City speech on Friday. Columnists Matthew Tully and Erika D. Smith debate the merits of the mayor’s plan:

Matthew Tully: So the mayor acknowledges that his previous attempts to deal with panhandlers have failed and he’s now proposing a new, better plan. I’m glad to hear this. I get bugged for money these days more often than a parent with teenagers. Erika, are you on board with a crackdown?

Erika Smith: No way! That would be a waste of money and other resources at a time when Indianapolis doesn’t have much to spare. So what if a few people hold signs in Downtown or near highway exits? We live in a city. The 13th-largest city in the country, in fact. Cities have poor people. Cities have people who are in need. Why should we hide them from public view?

Tully: A few people? Sorry, but this isn’t about a few people. This has become a major problem, not only Downtown but at intersections all over the city. I’m all for helping people in need. But tossing a dollar at a panhandler isn’t helping the city’s poor. Actually, it’s taking money away from groups that do help them.

Smith: So are you saying that residents and visitors who give a dollar to a panhandler are less likely to give to an organization that helps the homeless? That seems like a stretch. Residents should, of course, be encouraged to give to organizations that help those in need, but it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Besides, define “major problem”? I walked about seven blocks from the north end of Downtown to the south end of Downtown the other day, and I ran across maybe five panhandlers. Is that really so bad?

Tully: Well, it’s definitely not so good. True story: I parked on Illinois Street the other night and was approached within five seconds as I stood at the meter with my wallet out. After that, I was approached two more times during a one-block walk. Tell me that doesn’t impact the Downtown economy. Eventually, if it doesn’t feel safe, if it doesn’t feel comfortable, many people will stop coming. After all, it’s not like there hasn’t been enough in the news lately to make people think twice about going Downtown. In the end, I don’t see anything good by having a city flooded with panhandlers.

(Page 2 of 3)

Smith: Wow! You must look like you have more money than I do. Can I have a dollar?

Tully: Only if you put one of those phony sob stories on a cardboard sign. How about something about the pain of being from Cleveland?

Smith: That’s funny. But I thought your hometown of Gary was worse off. The good news is we both know Indianapolis is no burnt-out Rust Belt town. We’re on the upswing. But that doesn’t mean everything in our city is rosy. There are poor people. Lots of them. And the more urban we become, the more residents we’ll have of all income levels. So perhaps we need to re-examine our expectations of what it means to live in an urban area. Cities aren’t completely safe or comfortable. You want comfortable, go to the Disneyland-like Arts and Design District in Carmel. People come to cities to experience the unknown. That said, there’s a big difference between teenagers brawling and shooting people in the streets, and panhandlers asking passers-by for money. We should be focused on the former, not the latter.

Tully: I think your expectations are way too low — safe streets free of panhandling, after all, are a far cry from boring uniformity. Did New York City cease to be a great city when Rudy Guiliani demanded it be cleaned up? I don’t think so. It simply became a city that demanded more of itself. And while I know there are a lot of definitions for what makes a great city, I’ve never heard anyone say “uncomfortable” was one of them. To your other point, I agree we need to do all we can to help the city’s poorest, and I don’t think this state does enough. But letting a bunch of people panhandle in the cold isn’t kind-hearted; actually, it’s a way of ignoring them.

Smith: So New York wasn’t considered to be a great city BEFORE Giuliani “cleaned” it up? Do you really think an abundance of panhandlers kept tourists away? Shootings? Yes. But I’ve never heard of anyone who said, “You know, I really don’t want to visit the Big Apple because I don’t want to be harassed for money.” In fact, I’ve never heard anyone say that about any major city, except for Hoosiers talking about Downtown Indianapolis. I haven’t even heard visitors say that. So again, I think we need to re-examine what it means to live in a city. Just to play devil’s advocate, for a moment, what would you suggest is the “kind-hearted” thing to do for panhandlers? Moving them away from highly visible locations to make it easier to ignore them? That would certainly create the illusion of safety and comfort.

(Page 3 of 3)

Tully: Before I get to your question, it’s important to remember that there’s a reason the mayor is tackling the problem. There’s a reason Downtown businesses are pushing him to do so. There’s a reason tourism leaders consider this a problem. Because it is one, and because it hurts Downtown’s image and, thus, its economy. Dismissing the problem as an unavoidable city trait is like saying we should just accept abandoned buildings and graffiti, because they are a part of city life. Cities all over the country have tackled this issue — including, I should note, Cleveland! Why? Because it hurts the quality of life. It hurts business. And even passive panhandling eventually leads to aggressive panhandling. As for what would be kind-hearted: more support for places like Wheeler Mission — places that help those who truly are in need.

Smith: As I said before, I’m all about pushing for more financial support for organizations that help the homeless. But as someone who spent a night tagging along with outreach workers at a homeless camp under a bridge, I know that creating a bunch of “no solicitation zones” won’t do much to address that problem. Then again, it depends on what problem you’re trying to solve. Are we trying — as Cleveland and other cities have done quite unsuccessfully — to push panhandlers out of sight because it’s inconvenient to have them Downtown? Or are we really trying to help people in need? Let’s be honest.

Tully: Oh, you’re right. This is at its core about the health of the city’s Downtown economy, no question about it. The city’s tourism industry leaders are pushing hard for this change because they’ve heard complaints from convention and sports visitors, and because those visitors will return only if they’ve had a good, safe and, yes, comfortable time. I think we all know that if the convention business fades in Indianapolis, that would be a crushing blow for the local economy. And I know the mayor’s new ordinance won’t solve any systemic issues of poverty. I get that. But letting people panhandle all day — people who in most cases are not homeless — won’t do anything to help the problem, either.

Smith: Well, at least now I know we’re talking about the same thing. It’s true that Downtown’s image is important to the city’s future. But so are residents. Pushing panhandlers out of Downtown and away from highway exits will force them deeper into neighborhoods, outside of gas stations and grocery stores. Once that happens, once they’re out of the sight of tourists, the people with power in this community will forget that they exist. Problem solved. “Poverty? What poverty? I don’t see anyone poor here.” I’m still not convinced that panhandling is a “major problem” that needs to be addressed. But if we do address it, let’s do more than a quick fix. We’re a better city than that.

Tully: Well, if you’re saying we can’t address any problems until we solve poverty then I think we’re in trouble. That said, I enjoyed this argument. It sure was fun to be right!